Talk:Netball/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: undefinedBill william compton Talk  08:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

N.B.: Although we all agree that the article is using British English spelling, we are all friends here and everyone is free to use their own native spellings on this review page. Just assume that any posting to the article page will have the corrected spellings. Racepacket (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll start reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria by tomorrow. undefinedBill william compton Talk 08:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This article certainly has potential for GA, but there are some major issues which i'd like to be addressed before i pass this Good Article review. In meantime i'd advice few major changes in the article.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Thank you undefinedBill william compton Talk   19:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Check these inaccessible and dead links
 * All links were checked again. Should now work.  Thompson now fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * This is the main concern of my review; article is stuffed with details which are overwhelming it. Specially Netball around the world and Major competitions
 * Please cite specific passes that need fixing. --LauraHale (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please cite Wikipedia policy that suggests an article cannot be stuffed with information. Much of the trivial information has been removed in order to comply with that.  We've removed headers, at your suggestion, which make it appear more stuffed and harder to find information.  If there is trivial information that is still in the article, please provide specific, concrete examples so that it can be removed. --LauraHale (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How many times i've to tell you about the bulkiness of sections like Netball around the world and Major Competitions, refer this second point. I didn't ask you to just remove headers, but i recommended you to remove header and to replace the sections of each country with a unified short, most relevant and brief summary under the heading of each region.
 * This problem should now be fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Slightly biased towards the popularity of the game
 * Please cite examples of bias. This cannot be fixed with out clear examples. --LauraHale (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * slightly biased towards the popularity of the game because the whole article is about - how much it's popular in Commonwealth Nations, how it became a popular women's sport just by introducing to different countries, etc; but article doesn't tell why this sport is still not a part of Olympics, why it took 20 years for IOA to even recognize this sport while many other non-contemporary sports were already being in the list, why this is not as recognizable as basketball, even if both are so much similar, why this game is limited to women only and many other such questions. I think this is sufficient to question the neutrality of this article, sufficient examples or you need more??
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * well illustrated by the free images
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I extend the on hold period of this article for two more days to resolve above mentioned concerns.
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I extend the on hold period of this article for two more days to resolve above mentioned concerns.
 * I am going to request another person fail it. The reviewer's comment not detailed enough to improve.  The reviewer as not provide actionable feeback to improve the article.  Based on the reviewers previous comments, his concerns cannot be fixed in two days as we've tried to repeatedly fixed these concerns and if we haven't done it already, we aren't going to meet his requirements now..  The reviewer hasn't been time responsive. --LauraHale (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If these points will remain unresolved by tomorrow than i'll fail it by myself, no need of your advice. If you need more time to work on it than in this case i may further extend the period of hold and please tell me how much actionable feedback you need??, i tried to explain each and every point of all my concerns in detail. I told you i was busy for few days and wasn't in condition to response effectively, so why are you blaming me for not being a time responsive. I'd advice you to refer some good sports related articles like Association Football, Baseball, etc and you'll be able to interpret my recommendations.
 * I've looked at the association articles and the baseball articles. Both articles are largely about sports with large rates of male participation, sports that have popularity largely dependent on professionalism and spectatorship, and sports where principle interest is from Europe and South America.  Given these huge differences, they aren't the best examples.  --LauraHale (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The lead says Netball is popular in Commonwealth nations, but as i know and have researched about Netball, except Australia, New Zealand, England and few Caribbean countries or may be one or two African nations its not that much popular or even recognizable. So i couldn't digest that its a popular sport in Commonwealth nations, because word Commonwealth constitutes more than 50 sovereign countries and most of them are in Asia and Africa (and on population basis more than 90% Commonwealth population is from Asia and Africa). So i'd like to see change in this context or other such patterns in whole article like this Netball became a popular women's sport in countries where it was introduced, and spread rapidly through school systems, it doesn't sound to constitute a global view of the game.
 * General
 * Global View
 * I've done quite a bit of research in netball myself. The description you've given seems more akin to international-level competition than grassroots netball, which is widespread across the Commonwealth, particularly among southern African, Caribbean and Pacific island nations, and to a lesser extent in south Asia. Much of this (cited) information was moved off the main article into separate "netball in " articles just before the GA review started. I guess we could add more citations back to the Netball article to support it. – Liveste (talk • edits) 04:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ditto this in my own way. Netball feels a bit different than say soccer, baseball or basketball.  Yes, there are international competitions and yes, some of these are televised.  The important part of netball though isn't spectatorship, it is participation.  In soccer or basketball or baseball, the Cook Islands and Fiji and Samoa and Malawi and Saint Lucia do not rank on the world scale.  This sport is known more for its participation on the grass roots levels, for providing women with an opportunity to manage a game that they participate in on all levels.  Most of the information that was moved off into separate netball articles was for countries that had one or two lines about them.  This information was generally integrated into the section about the region, rather than leave up that one line. I really think the global view is important to keep, possibly expand.  I think the little snippets of history for these countries is important for highlighting what I mentioned: The game is important in smaller countries, it has high rates of female management, it is generally played by women and non-traditional nations dominate it. I guess what I'm wondering is if expanding more on individual nations in their own nations section is the answer to the problem or if the solution is to move the individual by nation data out of the general region section. --LauraHale (talk) 04:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a note here, the top 25 countries are all Commonwealth countries, and the list includes Asian and African members of the Commonwealth. It would take quite a lot of work to adequately source how 'popular' it is across the population of all these countries.this looks like a good source for "Commonwealth's most popular female sports", but I don't have access to the article, so I cant be sure. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Checked the source. The chapter on netball is talking about how netball players land on their knees and the impact it has on their knees.  (Netball's requirement for being stationary when throwing was intended to make netball less physically demanding.  It did not succeed.  It just changed the particular areas of stress.)  The article does not contain any statistics regarding world wide popularity. --LauraHale (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed: Merged the global section from history with Worldwide popularity. Renamed the section World game. --LauraHale (talk) 08:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that really fixes the problem. I think what Bill wanted clarified was just how prevalent the game was throughout the Commonwealth, but moreover the extent in which the game is played in the world at large. In which case, I think a paragraph along the following lines would have sufficed:
 * played in 70+ countries worldwide
 * historically, the game spread throughout the British Empire (being an English game)
 * primarily popular in "many" Commonwealth nations; limited inroads elsewhere (USA, France, Argentina, Israel)
 * In addition, moving the "global game" subsection has limited coverage in the History section to the end of the 1960s: forty years of netball history is now suddenly absent from the relevant section of the article. I suggest moving the subsection back and clarifying worldwide popularity as above. – Liveste (talk • edits) 04:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to take a stab at fixing that. I'm kind of at a loss of how to do it. :/  If the article's history bit is more about the rule changes, I can provide citations and examples for when the rules changed and that would could help make the section more about the history of the game on the court, rather than a history of the game in a broader sense.  And yeah, at a loss how to fix beyond what was done to try to fix it. --05:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The sub-section of History- Origins from basketball, talks about only how basketball was originated and than there is another sub-section Early development of netball, so either these both sub-sections have to be merged suitably or Origins from basketball section should employ more words for Netball
 * History
 * I think this has been addressed/resolved now. --LauraHale (talk) 04:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed: The two sections were merged and given a new header. --LauraHale (talk) 08:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no need of such a bulky section. Only brief idea should be mention here, extra information could be place into respective article or new stub/start class articles could also be made.
 * Worldwide popularity


 * Not sure how this fits in the context of the comments above about not conveying the reach of the game... or how to make it more brief. Could you suggest which sections should be eliminated here and explain why some more? --LauraHale (talk) 05:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed: Merged the global section from history with Worldwide popularity. Renamed the section World game. --LauraHale (talk) 08:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions:-
 * Replace this whole section with a title like Netball around the world or something like that, because World Game is a very broad sense term; the bulkiness of this section is completely senseless, i still don't understand why this section was made with so much over-information, there are already concerned articles for each sub-section (like Netball in Australia and Netball in South Africa) so why to detail them here also.
 * Concentrate this section within one or two paragraphs, don't mention each country with separate heading instead make sub-headings like:- Asia, Oceania    , Europe, Americas and Africa; but mention only important and necessary facts, like:-
 * any major historical aspect
 * level of popularity
 * Grassroots of the game within the country or continent
 * number of regular participants (not necessary if data is not available)
 * any major impact on the tactics of the game


 * Again, this is my first time going through a good article review so I'm a bit slow on how to do this. It is really hard to put the historical aspects.  There is no comprehensive history of netball that has been written about the sport, let alone individual countries.  Most of the countries that are big netball countries are less well developed countries in Africa, the Caribbean and Oceania.  It is hard to get a sense of the grassroots level as a result.


 * The popularity levels are hard to measure. The number of participants information that is available is all in the info box.  Beyond that, it is hard to find.  (For example, I've spent a good two or three hours trying to find total participant levels in Jamaica and another Caribbean nation mentioned in the article originally but not cited.)  Getting this information can only be done by country, not continent and that's a maybe.  (The level of administration is not comparable to baseball, basketball, soccer or rugby union which are much more popular.)


 * The historical aspects are some what subjective and that comes down to by country. The issue of apartheid in South Africa had a tremendous impact on the game in South Africa but it has little impact on say Botswana, Lesotho, Zimbabwe, Tanzania.  Tanzania or Botswana had funding issues that were unique to their economic situation if I recall correctly.  The Cook Islands had the same issues in various parts of their history.  The history of the game in individual countries is unique (which is why things were separated) and the patterns don't necessarily hold true by continent.


 * The issue of tactics wouldn't really be important to the history of individual countries, nor is it documented in the limited available sources regarding how the game being played in a country.


 * For this reason, I'm still at a complete loss as how to address your feedback, beyond just removing the individual countries completely and leaving the summary by region. --LauraHale (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I fixed this again. I removed the country headers. I removed some of the data that was in there.  Every country was basically brought down to one paragraph. --LauraHale (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Again this section is unnecessarily too large; concentrate it into one or maximum two paragraphs, don't include tabular data or irrelevant details. Preferably make two sections of international and domestic competitions.
 * Major competitions


 * There are no sections in the major competitions area about domestic competitions. They were all taken out and put into the information by country.  Beyond this, if we take this information out now, it will all have to be put back and expand upon it in order to get the article to featured status.  Given that, I'm not sure why it needs to be taken out in order get good article status. --LauraHale (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed: Mostly. The Asian Championship paragraph made it some of seem like a mess. Cleaned up that section. Removed a table. No domestic competitions included in the section. --LauraHale (talk) 08:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Suggestions: don't include results in tabular form, mention which are the various tournaments (competitions) of the game, place whole material within one or two paragraphs.


 * I've never gone through a good article process before so yeah. I apologize if I'm a little slow and not understanding what you're asking. I did that for the Netball World Championships I think.  I removed the table and replaced it with the information in paragraph form.  Is that example what you're thinking of?  Should I try that for the other major competitions?

I'm still not sure why you don't want tables in this section. If you could explain that some more? I've removed the duplicate information from the competition sections so there is less repetition. Manual of Style (tables) says of tables:
 * Tables are perfect for organizing any information that is best presented in a row-and-column format. .... Tables should not be used simply for layout, either. If the information you are editing is not tabular in nature, it probably does not belong in a table.

If a table is not used, the prose gets repetitive: Year, location, number of teams, first, second, third place. Repeat per year. If you don't think this information should be included for the most important international events for this sport, can you please explain why, and edit those sections to include the informatuon you think should be included. I believe the citations in the article should provide you with information that you may think should be included that I'm unclear about you wanting. --LauraHale (talk) 04:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There is not a single section about the governing bodies of the game. A section should be made about how this game is governed on the continental/region basis.
 * Governing bodies of the Netball


 * Fair point. Will work on adding a section about that.  --LauraHale (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Added a section on that. How much more information is needed? --LauraHale (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed: Section added. --LauraHale (talk) 08:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've restructured it.


 * Awesome. Thanks. --LauraHale (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

There are many dead hyperlinks which could be clear/correct.
 * Red-Links


 * Can you give some examples? My list of Redlinks that I see includes:


 * All England Netball Association
 * Cook Islands Netball Association
 * Netball World Youth Championship
 * Margharet Matenga
 * Anna Noovao
 * Kandy High School
 * Colombo Ladies College
 * Government Training College
 * Confederation of Southern Africa Netball Association
 * National Olympic Committee of South Africa
 * Netball South Africa
 * Mwanaidi Hassan
 * Loughborough Lightning
 * United States of America Netball Association
 * Grand Festival of Paraplegic Sport
 * Malaysian Netball Association


 * That's 16 total. A few of those could probably be removed, especially the high school ones.  The rest are important netball related people or netball and sport organizations that realistically, should have articles about them.  And this isn't a criteria as near as I can tell in manual of style or mentioned at Good article criteria.  To be frank, I'm not sure why this is an issue. --LauraHale (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I support LauraHale i see that she is right... You should fix those... --Zalgo (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The issue is to reduce the red links as much as possible, those which are highly relevant to the subject could be retain and keep in mind linking is also the part of MOS. undefinedBill william compton Talk 20:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed: Red links are removed from all but the national netball team parts, which use a template to show the flag. --LauraHale (talk) 08:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Schools I think the article needs more information about netball in schools, esp. schoolyard and curriculum, besides the titbits of information included in the subsections of "Netball around the world". Netball is (or at least has been) one of the most common school sports in modern health & physical education programs.(crikey, that is a redlink??)  If there is a lot of variance between countries, those subsections could be fleshed out a bit more with this information, or a section elsewhere should cover its use in schools. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thought about this. Hard to do as there isn't a consistent method of doing that.  In some countries, netball is included and some it isn't. In some places, it appears to be in the curriculum of mixed gendered classes and girls only classes.  In other places, netball is offered as a school sport only.  In still other places, netball is offered as a school sport, where the school does not offer physical education classes.  These three things can actually exist in the same state in a country.  The inclusion of netball in the curriculum also appears to differ and there isn't a universal timeline of sorts.  Beyond these basic issues, there are school based competitions and level of competitions that are described as school competitions but are actually competitions for school aged girls. --LauraHale (talk) 05:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Olympics The article says that "In 2008, efforts were started to include netball in the Olympic Games from as early as 2012." The source says that there are no plans to have it included in 2012 or 2016, but it would be discussed at a meeting in 2009. I think the article needs to summarise the current situation a bit better. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Added a section on the Olympics. Removed problem sentences.  Removed parts about Olympics in the body that would have made that repetitive. --LauraHale (talk) 05:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page:
 * If you had so much problem in interpreting these issues, than you could simply ask me for assistance and i'd pleased to do it by myself. How specifically i'd tell you that these sections are bulky in size, unbalanced and stuffed with unnecessary details, what you had to do just replaced the whole section with one or two paragraph sized summary, as there are already articles for each sub-section, similarly for the section major competitions, if there are articles for each competition/tournament than why you redundantly added tabular data about the results of these competitions. I really don't know why you're unable to understand these simple recommendations i made. undefinedBill william compton Talk 08:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I asked you on your talk page to put this on the GA page so I copied it here so there would be a record. I feel like I have repeatedly asked for clarification regarding what you've written. You said a section was bulky in size. They were made less bulky. You didn't indicate if this satisfied your requirements or how to improve upon that. You didn't respond for additional requests for feedback. You didn't provide any examples of sections, nor how to fix these sections. Please feel free to go through the world section and fix it. We reduced content, reduced content, reduced content and it was never right and you didn't provide additional feedback on how to improve them. Beyond that, there are no non-start articles for most of these country articles. We're talking trying to integrate information from over 50 nations. I don't understand your instance on referring to poorly written articles and non-existent articles as superior to the main article. --LauraHale (talk) 08:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The tabular data is not cited on the sub pages and the tabular data is extremely important to understanding the competition. It helps explain the schedule for the event, who hosts these events and what the top teams are. Information presented that way is more condense. Thus, I'm still completely unclear as to what you want in these sections. Do you just want a list of the major competitions? --LauraHale (talk) 08:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Within the time frame you have given yourself, please fix all the problems you have identified. I still don't understand what you want and you have provided me with no additional clarity regarding your desires for how to edit the article, nor your rational for cutting down sections as the information is on sub pages that doesn't exist. I don't know what you want. You are not communicating with me effectively. Please use your time frame and edit the article so it can get a good article status using your advice. --LauraHale (talk) 08:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Too much content in ones view is not bias. Gee. Personally I would consider removing the bits about the Asian champs and nation cup as the article imo should just have world comps. KnowIG (talk) 10:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Moved the Asian championship referenced to the Asian section. I then removed the section. The Nations Cup is something I honestly don't know enough about to know if it should be moved/removed as a non-major event. It was listed on the article when I first started editing.  The article that it points to has no real sources, so it makes it hard to evaluate based on those grounds alone.  Tomorrow morning Australia time, when I'm more awake, I'll try to find sources to get a better idea of its importance on the international calendar.  If it is important, I'll expand the little blurb in front of it to better demonstrate relevance.  Thanks for the comment. :)  If there is any other concrete examples like this that you could cite, I'd be happy to have a go at trying to improve them. --LauraHale (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I came to this review because of the request for a second opinion. I am willing to give you an opinion, but I am not sure what is the question. If the question is whether tables or bullet lists are allowed under the GA criteria, yes they are. Given a broad topic such as netball, it is diffcult to draw a line around the appropriate scope of the article. I generally allow a lot of leeway in relevant content. If the article's overall size grows too long, then daughter articles can be split off. See, WP:SPLIT. I would not delete the challenged material completely (vs. splitting it off.) Racepacket (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

KnowIG's review
If you don't mind I'm going to go section by section and flag major issues. Minor ones I'll sort myself.

History

at her Physical Training College in London (later in Dartford). Should be Dartford near London. All Dartford is famous for is a tunnel which people usually sit in a traffic jam in :P ✅ Trying to help, but lost in the traffic. Linked to article on "Dartford" Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Basketball spread to England within a few years of its invention. Martina Bergman-Österberg introduced one version of basketball in 1893 to her female students at her Physical Training College in London (later in Dartford). Which version also is a source avaliable. If not don't worry too much vary comprensive article. ✅ Added a source Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Australia, netball competed with women's basketball. The two sports shared a name. What was this name. Although implied in next sentence spelt out would be better. ✅ "women's basketball" re-phrased. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

In 1963, the first international tournament was held in Eastbourne, England. Originally called the World Tournament, it eventually became known as the Netball World Championships. It has been held every four years since, most recently in 2007. The World Youth Netball Championships started in Canberra in 1988, and have been held roughly every four years since. In 1995, netball became an Olympic-recognised sport, allowing its inclusion in future games. Reference needed for the world tournament claim and the world youth champ plus the olympic claim. ✅ "Added refs Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

primarily contested between second- and third-tier netball nations. Link second and third tier. If red link then you can create an article later stating these tier differences. ✅ struck "second- and third-tier" Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Australia had started playing a game similar to the of England during the 1960s. to the English players during the 1960s ✅ corrected typo. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

KnowIG (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Description and rules be at least .9 metres (2 ft 11 in). Centmeters would be better. ✅ done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC) ✅ done Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Varients A unique feature of this form of the game is that players can shoot from outside the goal circle for a two-point goal, while shots taken inside the goal circle still earn one point. Can anyone shoot. ✅ Specified "attacking and centre players". – Liveste (talk • edits) 14:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Each quarter lasts only six minutes, compared with 15 minutes in normal international netball competition. Rm latter part of sentence. ✅ done Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Each team can separately nominate one "power play" quarter, in which each goal scored by that team counts for double points. This is somewhat similar to powerplays in One Day International and Twenty20 cricket,[67] although it is not a feature of standard netball.[66] Rm although its is not a feature.... ✅ done Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Umpires raise one arm for a single-point goal and two arms for a two-point goal. In standard netball rules, goals can only be shot from within the shooting circle and count for one point only. Think the umpire stuff is not needed. And the rest of it really? I think the point is made and is self explanatory with out this. ✅ done Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Centre passes: After each goal, the team that conceded the goal takes the next centre pass; teams alternate taking the first centre pass of each quarter. Under normal rules, a coin toss determines the first centre pass of the match, after which centre passes alternate between the two teams.[66] So it's no difference to normal right? Remove then. ✅ done Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Readded. There is a difference, which I've tried to clarify: "After each goal, the team that conceded the goal takes the next centre pass. Under normal rules, centre passes alternate between the two teams, regardless of which team scored the last goal." It doesn't take into account every situation, but the description is true in general. – Liveste (talk • edits) 14:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Fun Net program runs for 8–16 weeks. There are no winners or losers. Is this really needed. ✅ removed Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

High Five Netball has been heavily promoted by the All England Netball Association.[74] Move into above paragraph. ✅ done Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Childrens a bit Aussie focused but if you state that these are played all over then I can forgive for the AUssie focus.

Global section. I am going to do a bit of work and post some bits here. KnowIG (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Demo appeal

Representative men's teams exist, but attract less attention. But are less popular/recieve less attension. your call.

England were at 0.6% of the total. Made up not were at. ✅ done Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Mixed Netball Association, is this a global assoication or an aussie one. If global link don't care if it red links. Bill was wrong
 * Added red links in the men's section. Added more information as a source was found.  Should give a better idea of the history of men's netball and global participation.  Also, red links added. --LauraHale (talk) 05:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

International Challenge Men’s and Mixed Netball Tournament. Link don't care if its red.

nice stuff on the trannys

Players were all in wheelchairs and used netball posts to. Don't need to state that they were in wheelchairs. It's implied by polo and the cross of basketball as basketball for disabled is wheelchair based. ✅ done Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

basketball in 1956.[181] The replacement version of the game is what is now called wheelchair basketball. Write wheelchair basketball and you can rid of the next sentence but obviously keep the ref. ✅ done Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

less coverage of the sport, because most coverage of women's sport focuses around the Olympics. I would be happier if you stated most coverage of women's sport takes place at major champs along side men's events. Sorry my specialist subject at the moment :P ✅ done Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Money that is available through International Olympic Committee and the British Council to promote women's sport sometimes ignores women's sport in certain geographic areas. Repeat of 2 sentences earlier with the inclusion of British council. Keep the Brit bit, I didn't know this. ✅ done Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Netball may be the most popular women's sport, in terms of media coverage and participation rates, in an area but the money goes towards Olympic sports with low participation rates, low rates of interest and few facilities. Pritty sure women's tennis recieves more media coverage than netball. Should probably remove this unless you can make so your not making a bold claim. in an area gives plenty of room. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added where it is played, just to give it a bit more definition. Certainly makes it less of a bold claim now as it now doesn't mean globally.

Some supporters of netball have argued that by trying to internationalise the game and be included in the Olympics has moved netball away from a model of women's sport and more towards a male model of competitive sport. This is viewed by some sport people as detrimental to the game. intersting but strange, considering that on the box down the bottom a list of sports are given, most are played by men and are masculine or gender neutral. So probmatic. Yes this and the one above have a source but as you can see, it's a bold claim easily shot down unfortunatly :(
 * That people are saying it is a fact. Editorialising myself, the issue is really about participation sport vs spectator sport, an issue which many mens sports also grapple with. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you think that it could be phrased in a better way, cause it is just rather difficult to interpret in the right way to me. KnowIG (talk) 09:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The entire quote has been added. That should clear up any misunderstandings. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The most important competition in netball is the World Championship which is held every four years. Can't have one sentence. State who has won the most times and where the first tournie was and who was the winner. Yeah I know table but you needed to pad here. ✅ done.

Commonwealth state that Aus and NZ are the most successful, Aus first 2 NZ next 2.

Nice stuff on the world series, this should be the standard for the bits above.

Nations cup well we've already talked about that. I think once this is done and I've had a proper look at global bit we're good to promote. KnowIG (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Red links

Grand Festavile of Paraligic sports do you mean/could it be/is it this IWAS World Games

Global I've rearranged it into alphabetical order of regions then countries.

I've sorted out the lead to this section. But can you please remove the fastnet format as it's a varient and is of little worth here.

School leagues and national club competitions have existed in countries such as England, Australia, New Zealand and Jamaica since the early 20th century. However, franchise-based netball leagues only emerged in the late 1990s. The most prominent of these competitions is the ANZ Championship in Australia and New Zealand, and the Netball Superleague in the United Kingdom. references please. And before this can you write that international competiton really took off in 67 with the advent of the world cup reference that. Then link into the above section.

Generally before I start any sections I've removed trival tournament spec stuff which doesn't enhance the article. Like 6 teams competed in 2008 etc. And have removed double links.

Americas This can be seen in the countries that play it Antigua and Barbuda and Grenada being an important netball being important minor netball playing countries. Complete garbage. Makes no sense. Should be if it stays This can be seen in the countries that play it for example. Antigua and Barbuda who are part of the commonwealth and Grenada who are not. In Antigua it is a popular sport unlike in Grenada. ✅ cleaned up. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Asia removed stuff about the gay games team because its repetition. And removed the listy so and so played in this year stuff. As tbh not really presenting diverstiy imo.

Europe Cleaned up.

Oceania Cleaned up.

I'll leave it here for today. Plenty for you to do. I'll be back tomorrow to work on the countries. :) KnowIG (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Other comments
Per WP:SIZE and WP:SPLIT this 140K artcle should be shortened. You already have daughter articles such as Netball in Samoa, Asian Netball Championship, Netball in India, etc. I believe that you can shorten and summarize what is covered in depth in the daughter articles. If the material in the tables regarding World Championships, Nations Cup, etc. appear in the daughter article, you can remove them from this article. As a general rule, the goal should be an article of about 60K to 80K in length. This article should be an international, generic overview with details left to the daughter articles. I hope this helps. I was going to do a detail review, but I don't want to supplant KnowIG. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would reword "Some supporters of netball have argued that by trying to internationalise the game and be included in the Olympics has moved netball away from a model of women's sport and more towards a male model of competitive sport." Please find more concrete terms than "male model of competitive sport." Are you saying that these advocates seek Netball to be included in the Olympics as both a men's and women's sport? Or are you referring to commercialization?  If example, in the United States, women's basketball and women's boxing have become professional sports. Perhaps you mean amateur vs professional rather than men vs. women.
 * Fixed this issue by adding a quote that clearly illustrates that point. Also fixed it by addressing some of the citation issues in the section.--LauraHale (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest adding a bit of a summary of how netball differs from women's basketball in terms of size of court, scoring, etc. Racepacket (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't the latter suggestion covered by Netball, Netball, Netball? I'm unclear as to why basketball (men's and women's generally don't vary, with most of the difference in the court changing at levels of play, not gendering of play) should be mentioned in these sections, as it would assume people are familiar with basketball.  In the Cook Islands, Australia and New Zealand at lest, people would be more familiar with netball court size and dimensions than they would be with basketball.  (Would the inverse be true?  Should we be editing the basketball article to compare it to netball courts to provide perspective?) --LauraHale (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Differences between basketball and netball are adequately covered in the "Description and rules" section. Further comparisons could be covered in a Comparison of basketball and netball article, similar to (for example) Comparison of American football and rugby union. – Liveste (talk • edits) 04:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That was also done for cricket apparently: An article compares Cricket to American baseball. --LauraHale (talk) 05:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is currently confusing to the reader. It starts off saying that it evolved from women's basketball, but it does not say how the game differs. Presumably, the difference is that women's basketball has five players on the court who run from both the offensive to defensive positions, while in netball there are seven players on the court whose travel is limited to restricted to particular thirds of the court.  Why can't the article make a statement like that? Racepacket (talk) 12:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Where do you think that should be included in the article? It shouldn't be in the rules section.  If you think it should be in the history section, please make the edit. :) --LauraHale (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That is really more up to the nominator. The history section would be fine. Racepacket (talk) 11:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If it is important to the article to mention basketball (not women's basketball. Netball is not a variation of women's basketball.  It is a variation of basketball.), you'll need to make the edit.  Comparing netball to basketball (as opposed to women's basketball, which is another name for netball) only makes sense if the assumption is that the audience is familiar with basketball.  Please make the edit yourself or provide a detailed rational as to why the comparison between basketball and netball need to be made.  (And then edit the basketball article to make similar comparisons. The instance to include basketball feels like American bias.) --LauraHale (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Fixed: I removed all references to women's basketball in the history section. I changed it to basketball or netball to make sure there is clarity: Netball is a derivative of BASKETBALL (a sport with rules that are the same for both genders) and netball is also called women's basketball.  The use of women's basketball in both ways just made it confusing and may be why we keep having confusion.  --LauraHale (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. At the time that netball was emerging, women's basketball rules were substantially different from men's rules. I think the confusion in the History section arose because there wasn't a clear explanation that the rules of basketball varied across the United States, and that several versions (most notably the Spalding rules for women) each influenced the development of netball in England. Eliminating women's basketball from the article has actually confused things further. I've tried to explain this on the article talk page, as a justification for restoring the references to women's basketball (or whatever you want to call it) here. And netball has not been called "women's basketball" for around forty years now, so one name can't be considered a synonym for the other. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 16:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Readable prose size is only 55 KB (9,240 words) so per WP:SIZE, the article does not need to be split. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that tables don't count against readble prose size, but I still recommend moving the tournament result tables to the daughter articles. Racepacket (talk) 05:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are you making this recommendation? As one of the issues that appears to be happening in this article is that there is a goal to make the article more American centric in its appeal (basketball and listing commonwealth countries), the tables amply demonstrate that the sport is popular outside of American areas of interest.  That seems to be important for people to understand.  At the same time, the daughter articles are extremely poor.  If they were better, I would understand this argument better.  Why are you making this recommendation?  --LauraHale (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Why the title "Globally"? "Netball around the world" looks more encyclopedic IMO. Personally I'd prefer the country subheadings to be removed, but I'm not too concerned about it for GA purposes. One question though: Netball Australia is considered to be in the Asian netball region, rather than in Oceania (similar to Football Federation Australia) – shouldn't we move the Australian information to Asia? – Liveste (talk • edits) 04:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As the geographic break up is by IFNA region, I would move Australia to the correct IFNA region. (I'm probably responsible for it being there.  I think the article originally just had sections by country.  I imposed the regional structure and just made assumptions.)  I personally like the country subheadings as I find it easier to find information when scanning the article.  If it went, I wouldn't necessarily be object.  The major issue would be how to put in the see alsos and mains. --LauraHale (talk) 05:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree with Bill that a "Domestic competitions" section should be included, either as a stand-alone section or as part of "Major competitions". I can rework current sections so that the information wouldn't (for the most part) be redundant. – Liveste (talk • edits) 04:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Changing major competitions to International competitions and Domestic competitions, each with their own hierarchy would be cool with me. My only concern would be that it could be a bit biased towards England, New Zealand and Australia. I'd also be concerned that it would duplicate soe of the information in by area section.  If you can figure out how to resolve that, please do. :)  I'll be happy either way so ong as everything is fully cited. :) --LauraHale (talk) 05:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Also think that Olympics should be moved to the bottom of the "Major competitions" section, since it's not a major netball competition (perhaps "Inclusion in the Olympics"?). I also think we should readd World Netball Series to that section, since despite being a fastnet tournament it's still a part of the overall international netball calendar. The same (participating) national netball teams (except Aus and NZ, which send development teams) contest both test netball and fastnet annually, unlike (say) rugby union and rugby sevens. – Liveste (talk • edits) 04:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Would it make sense to add a section about press coverage (or the lack of it) and sexism in the coverage of sport as that is a major underlying issue with the Olympics?   Move the Olympics section to that section.  Otherwise, yeah, I'm cool with it being moved to the bottom of the section or whatever solution you think works.  I didn't quite understand why the Fastnet tournament was moved to that subsection because the game is still played by the the national team.  It doesn't seem much different to me than say 1 day cricket, 40 overs cricket, 20 overs cricket. --LauraHale (talk) 05:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree don't understand why Netball world series was moved as I didn't ask for it. Anyway Laura if you want to include stuff about sexism in sport I can help with some decent accdemic quotes KnowIG (talk) 09:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that the issue could be addressed as either the relative commercial success and participation levels of netball vs. basketball, because it also has racial aspects. I grew up in a small town in Illinois with virtually no minorities and was taught that basketball was a male game that I was required to play. By the time that I got to college it had generally been labeled a game for African-American males and all of the attention of my peers turned to ice hockey as the big winter sport. Today, my college embraces women's basektball and some of the women team members aspire to make their careers in the sport as players or coaches. So it is more a question of society celebrating athleticism than current prejudice against feminism. Women's basketball is an Olympic sport and it has a large professional and collegiate following in the United States.  The article could attempt to explain the evolution to that outcome. Racepacket (talk) 11:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stop comparing netball to basketball. This article is not a comparison between netball and basketball.  This is an article about netball.  It does not make sense to continually reference basketball.  Also, please stop referring to women's basketball. Women's basketball is not an Olympic sport.  Women's basketball is an Olympic recognised sport that is not played in the Olympics.  The article is written in British English and Women's basketball is another name for netball.
 * In Australian and New Zealand English. Try reading your sentence using that language: "Today, my high school embraces netball and some of the women team members aspire to make their careers in the sport as players or coaches."  I do not think your high school embraces netball.
 * Now that we've covered that, can you please explain exactly what edits you want made? With out references to netball (women's basketball) and the United States?  It makes it very, very confusing. I'd love to move this article forward. --LauraHale (talk) 00:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I will rephrase my suggestion: I think that the issue could be addressed as either the relative commercial success and participation levels of netball vs. basketball, because it also has racial aspects. I grew up in a small town in Illinois with virtually no minorities and was taught that basketball was a male game that I was required to play. By the time that I got to college it had generally been labeled a game for African-American males and all of the attention of my peers turned to ice hockey as the big winter sport. Today, my college embraces the sport that the IOC calls "women's basektball" and some of the women team members aspire to make their careers in that sport as players or coaches. So it is more a question of society celebrating athleticism than current prejudice against feminism. The IOC has made the sport it calls "Women's basketball" an Olympic sport, and that sport has a large professional and collegiate following in the United States.  The article could attempt to explain the evolution to the outcome where a single sport evolved into two separate sports with one gaining Olympic sport and a robust professional league while the other not achieving the same acceptance by the IOC and the professional sports world.


 * I've fixed the article so that errant references to "women's basketball" are completely removed. The IOC has a sport called: Basketball.  I'm looking at their site.  It has Basketball, Men.  Basketball, Women.  I don't see references on their current site to "women's basketball."  In either case, as you've made clear above, the IOC acts in concert with USAOC.  This would imply American bias towards language that is inappropriate in an article using British English, with heavy influences from Australian and New Zealand English.  As the problematic phrase is no longer included in the article, as the citations have been fixed to refer to the game as "American Basketball", this situation should be fixed.--03:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why did you delete the portion of the history discussing how special rules were established for women's basketball shortly after the original game was invented? 17:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * As for your other issues regarding minorities, I too grew up in small town Illinois. As Illinois is part of the USA, your experiences are culturally biased towards America.  They do not match with the experiences of Australia and New Zealand and the Cook Islands, nor of how race is dealt with in England, nor Jamaica, nor South Africa.  Nor for that matter, do they match with Vanuatu, Singapore, Malaysia, India, Fiji and Malawi. --03:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If you're really stuck on American Women's Basketball being important to reference in an article like this, I would suggest the situation be resolved by having you create an article that compares the difference to Women's Basketball/Netball and American Basketball/Basketball played by women in the USA. That would be a more appropriate place for this topic.  If people cannot understand the sport of Women's Basketball/Netball on its own, as written, then the article has larger issues.  Please cite problematic passages that you do not understand.  They can be fixed to help fix up any misunderstandings.


 * If the existence of a women's basketball article referring to American basketball play women is an issue, I will find an admin to help merge the two articles together, because no similar article about men's basketball exists. --03:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't that a bit WP:POINTy? I think that the Taylor article raises some of the items that occured to me about gender roles. Perhaps you should consider using it more in this article. Racepacket (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * As I read the article, "women's basketball" was no longer the officially accepted name for netball after 1968. The article should explicitly state what happened in 1968.  I don't understand why 40 years later you claim that there is public confusion about "women's basketball," which is the Olympic sport. On August 8, 2008, the New Zealand women's basketball team defeated the Mali team 76-72 in the 2008 Summer Olympics. Are you saying that the New Zealand team was playing by netball rules with 7 players on the court while the Mali team was playing by rules similar to men's basketball with only 5 players on the court because New Zealand players didn't understand what was meant by "women's basketball?" Why did the New Zealand media cover the game as a "women's basketball" game when it reported this Olympic victory? Also, this source also indicates the current meaning of the phrase "women's basketball."
 * The article does not use the phrase "women's basketball". The article does not mention netball.   Your source does not support claim regarding the phrase "women's basketball" being a separate sport from "basketball." FIBA does not represent two separate sports: Basketball and women's basketball. Women's basketball and basketball are not two separate sports. In Australia and in places like New Zealand and elsewhere, the game of netball has historically been referred to as "women's basketball." (See reference to the American basketballers paying the Australian women's basketballers to change their name in 1970 to netball.) In either case, this is a largely irrelevant debate.  This is an article about netball.  The article is not about basketball.  What passages do you think reflecting on are not clear?  What passages do you think need to be reworded because you don't understand the difference between basketball and netball?  What passages do not stand on their own for understanding the sport? --LauraHale (talk) 04:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to insist on American basketball being played by women be included in the article, I would like to include a section on comparing the sport to rugby union. (There are women's teams. The sport is played outside, on grass.  They both have scoring areas.)  I'd also like a section comparing the sport to hockey. (Hockey is popular in commonwealth countries. It too is often played outside on grass. It too has scoring areas.  In hockey, women also wear skirts.  Hockey also has an issue with confusing Americans, because Americans call it field hockey, whereas the global default in commonwealth countries is to call it hockey and call the American and Canadian game Ice Hockey.)  Can you please edit the article to make these references? --LauraHale (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Still unaddressed by nominator


 * "If a player misses and the ball does not touch the rim or any part of the post, the player cannot catch it otherwise it is called replay." - reword sentence to active voice - a referee calls a replay? "Ball" is the antecedent of the pronoun "it". Runon sentence.
 * Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I would change, "In 1992, the country hosted its first national championship.[128]"->"In 1992, the USANA hosted its first national championship.[128]" and define USANA in the prior sentence. Neither the United States government nor its US Olympic Committee sanctioned a national championship.
 * Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "However, while Netball may be the most popular women's sport in an area where it is played, in terms of media coverage and participation rates, money often goes to Olympic sports with low participation rates, low rates of interest and few facilities." - this is POV pushing. Not clear what you mean by "area."
 * Added a quote to help neutralize the PoV issues. Media coverage often does go there.  Tried to make the issue of area clearer.  Thought the areas where netball was played were made clear in the rest of the article. (Mostly in commonwealth countries, in oceania, in Africa, in parts of Asia, in the Caribbean.) --LauraHale (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Please clarify whether the Netball World Championships are a part of the World Games.
 * Not sure how to do this. What word implies that?  (Is the World Series part of the World Games?) Can you please edit to clarify this or specifically reference the text which suggests that the two are connected. Added reference to the Cook Islands section to show that they competed in both the world games and that championship. --LauraHale (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Still unaddressed by nominator


 * In demographic appeal, the source does not support the part of the sentence which reads, "Netball requires speed, strategy, team work and co-ordination". The logical leap between that phrase and "its appeal is not limited to women" is unsupported. I suggest that you remove the first phrase as unnecessary. Wikipedia does not need to explain why netball appeals to men.


 * Fixed: Removed the whole first sentence. It was part of the original section that had been carried over and never adequately sourced. --LauraHale (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In the next sentence, "Representative men's teams exist" - but it is not clear to the reader what "representative" means.
 * Fixed: Changed to say club, national and international instead of representative. --LauraHale (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * " At Gay Games VI, " - I suggest you state the year. This paragraph only discusses two occassions rather than the general practice of whether Transgenders and transsexuals are allowed to compete on men's teams or women's teams under IFNA rules. Still unaddressed by nominator
 * Fixed the section to state that IFNA does not recognise any version of the sport but when played by women. Added year after Gay Games number as games are not referred to by year but by number. --LauraHale (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The Tagg article makes an excellent point regarding the limitations on netball's appeal and the view that traditional "women" sports are inferior to traditional "men" sports. For example, women demanded the right to compete in basketball, but men did not demand the right to compete in netball. (Tagg at 419) This should be discussed in the section "Demographic appeal."  Women's basketball has been a part of the Summer Olympics since 1976 while netball received recognition much later.  Some people view the two sports as competing for resources and recognition, and the article could explore why women's basketball has gain Olympic status and large financial sponsorship.  Is it more exciting for spectators to watch or does it appeal to the gender prejudices of various societies? Racepacket (talk) 12:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Still unaddressed by nominator
 * Can you please refer to it women playing basketball as "basketball played by women" instead of "women's netball". "women's basketball" is another name for netball. The article is not written in American English.  It is written in British English and could easily be written in Australian or New Zealand English.  Beyond that, the article's topic is not about a sport played in America, with a very tiny American following.  It makes your comments appear biased towards America, and suggests a violation of NPOV by pushing an American viewpoint. And men did not demand the right to play netball because the rules clearly prohibited them from playing, and there was cultural bias against it. The article you cite never once uses the phrase women's basketball.
 * I am also failing to see "Women's basketball has been a part of the Summer Olympics since 1976 while netball received recognition much later." being mentioned in that article by Tagg. The only reference to 1976 mentions apartheid.
 * Given these issues, can you please reword your request with out a single reference to basketball played by women? I cannot understand what you want added as it pertains to netball and the netball article. --LauraHale (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The Tagg article makes an excellent point regarding the limitations on netball's appeal and the view that traditional "women" sports are inferior to traditional "men" sports. For example, women demanded the right to compete in basketball, but men did not demand the right to compete in netball. (Tagg at 419) This should be discussed in the section "Demographic appeal."  The sport labelled by the IOC as "Women's basketball" has been a part of the Summer Olympics since 1976 while netball received only recognition much later.  Some people view the two sports as competing for resources and recognition, and the article could explore why what the IOC calls "women's basketball" has gain Olympic status and large financial sponsorship.  Is it more exciting for spectators to watch or does it appeal to the gender prejudices of various societies?  I hope my question is now clear. Racepacket (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Still unaddressed by nominator
 * The Tagg article does not mention 1976, except in the context of apartheid era netball\rugby. "Women's basketball" is not mentioned in the tagg article.  Given the issues with what you said and what I know the source says, I'm unclear as to what you are looking for her.  Please explain what you are looking for again, with out any references to sports other than netball. I will be happy to make the changes once I know exactly what it is that you are looking for.  In the men's section, I removed problematic, poorly sourced wording on the appeal to men and thought this fixed the problem you were getting at. --LauraHale (talk) 05:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I also found this passage in Taylor at p. 64 to be insightful: "The official exclusion of men from women's basketball was ingrained in AAWBBA's constitution and underpinned its ideological stance. Despite constant pressure to change, the AAWBBA executive held steadfast to a women-only policy for over 50 years. The game's advocates felt that if men were allowed to assume positions of influence they would soon dominate the organisation's decision-making. It was not until the 1970s that men were allowed to hold formal positions within the member associations." Can we generalize from the Austrilia experience to the world concerning the gender issues? Racepacket (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Still unaddressed by nominator

GA procedures
User:Bill william compton started this review and requested a second opinion. I replied, and he handed it off to me. Before I could write up the review, User:KnowIG started an excellent review, but also went on to make a number of valuable edits to the article. Given KnowIG's active editing of the article, would it be better if I made the independent assessment of the article against the GA criteria when it came time to close the review? I would appreciate everyone's views. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I personally have no preference. I don't know if User:KnowIG is actively reviewing the article at this time.  I think you're the only one left.  If you're comfortable passing or failing it, I'm more than happy so long as we get some form of resolution regarding its status. --LauraHale (talk) 05:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Fine with me. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Definatly fine with me. I was going to ask you to review. KnowIG (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Then we have agreement, and Bill has expessed agreement as well. Let us go forward and work to finish this. LauraHale, Hawkeye7, KnowIG, Bill and anyone else, please jump in and lend a hand to we can get this to GA. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments after the March 19 Edits
I have re-read the most recent version of the article, and I agree that we are making progress toward reducing confusion about terminology. However, more work remains:
 * State what happened regarding the name in 1968.
 * Done. Added reference to name change. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In the next paragraph, change "In 1963, the first international tournament was held in Eastbourne, England."->"In 1963, the first international women's netball tournament was held in Eastbourne, England."
 * No need to say "women's" which is a tautology, and the whole article is about netball. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your concern. However, because the article discusses the development of men's netball and coed netball, the history section should make clear that as of 1963, we are discussing women-only. Alternatively, you could add a prefatory note at the top of the article explaining that unless otherwise stated, "netball" refers to the women-only form . Racepacket (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Change " In 1995, netball became an Olympic-recognised sport,[25][26]"->" In 1995, the International Olympic Committee recognized netball as a sport,[25][26]"
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Something happened. Could we please say "recognized netball as a sport" which is true and not "recognized netball as an Olympic sport" which is false. Racepacket (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Change "Three years later it debuted at the 1998 Commonwealth Games in Kuala Lumpur.[8]"->"Three years later, women's netball debuted at the 1998 Commonwealth Games in Kuala Lumpur.[8]"
 * This was the first appearance of netball. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you read the article, it is clear that the netball is mostly only played by women. Men's netball is not recognised by IFNA.   The Commonwealth game is an IFNA recognised one.  Beyond that, the international organisation for men was not created until the 2000s.  Why should the article used gendered language?  See Gender-neutral language that says: Uncommon gender-marked terms (conductress, career woman, male nurse, aviatrix), with the possible implication that the participation of the subject's gender is uncommon, unexpected or somehow inappropriate. --LauraHale (talk) 05:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't our common goal to make the article easy to read and to understand? When a sport takes three forms - coed, male and female - the article should help the reader understand what is being said and Gender-neutral language would dictate against the possible implication that the participation of the subject's gender is uncommon, unexpected or somehow inappropriate. I have no preconceived notion that netball is a women-only sport, and the article must assume a reader who has no idea what the sport is or who plays it. How does the reader know by reading the History section that 1) the IFNA sanctions only the women discipline or 2) that the Commonwealth Games only includes IFNA recognized competition to the exclusion of the men or coed disciplines? Please say it in the history section (without judgment) so that the reader can follow what is said. Racepacket (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Change "Other international competitions also emerged ..."->"Other international women's netball competitions also emerged ..."
 * No need to say "women's" which is a tautology, and the whole article is about netball. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you read the article, it is clear that the netball is mostly only played by women. Men's netball is not recognised by IFNA.   The other competitions are IFNA recognised ones.  Beyond that, the international organisation for men was not created until the 2000s.  At the same time, when a competition does involve men (or transgenders or transexuals), it is specifically referenced. Why should the article used gendered language?  See Gender-neutral language that says: Uncommon gender-marked terms (conductress, career woman, male nurse, aviatrix), with the possible implication that the participation of the subject's gender is uncommon, unexpected or somehow inappropriate. --LauraHale (talk) 05:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining your concern on both changes. Please see my comment above. Racepacket (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Court and dimensions - as noted on the talk page, imperial measurements should be used with metric equivalents following in paranethesis.
 * Used metric as per the discussion and official game rules. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The consensus was that metric measurements were to be used because metric measurements are in the official rules. Beyond that, the article is in British English.  British English does not use imperial measurements.  Please provide another rational for switching to American measurements. --LauraHale (talk) 05:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MEASUREMENT, even an American English article should use metric. Put the units first that are in the most widespread use in the world except for topics strongly associated with places where imperial measurements are still used, like Burma and Liberia. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The talk page points out that the dimensions were standardized prior to the adoption of the metric system in Britain. How does one explain that it is 100 ft long and 50 ft wide. Would a "metric form of netball" be played on a court 100m long and 50m wide? Should the article (perhaps in the History section) explain how and why these dimensions are used? The IFNA website says the center circle is 3 ft in diameter, not 2 ft 11 inches. What is correct?
 * Imperial units may have been used initially, but the current version of the rules list measurements in metric units; this appears to have been a straight unit conversion. This page on the IFNA website also shows the court measurements in metric units, including the diameter of the centre circle (0.9 m). – Liveste (talk • edits) 00:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Demographic Appeal section - please see my comments above in the "Other Comments" section of this review.
 * Comments were made on this section and I think they got lost in a conflict edit with you.  In any case, this was addresses in the text by removign problematic phrasing. --LauraHale (talk) 05:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I still believe the explanation of the differences with Women's basketball would be helpful to the reader.


 * A comparison with rugby might be even better, but lengthy comparisons tend to make articles essay-like. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You can believe that but until you are willing to compare netball to hockey and rugby union, it isn't going to happen. And until you can give direct quotes from the article where people may confuse the two sports, we can't fix this because I do not know where in the article you are confused about the difference between American basketball played by women and "women's basketball" also called netball. Can you please cite these passages so we can move forward with the process? --LauraHale (talk) 05:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We need to help the average reader. Please make whatever comparisons you feel is most helpful to the reader. The article starts out by explaining the common origin of basketball as it evolved separately into what LauraHale calls "Basketball - women" and "netball." Can we help the reader appreciate what the differences are between those two evolutionary forks? Analogies to field hockey or rugby may be included as well, but I don't think that they have the same degree of common heritage. Racepacket (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would be helpful. While many people know netball, few have a knowledge of basketball. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your cooperation on this review. Racepacket (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Racepacket (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In the interplay between the References and the Bibilography section, if a source is only used once or has only a single page reference that is used multiple times, should it be redirected to the Bibilography? I could not find the appropriate MOS standard to cover the issue. Racepacket (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In the first paragraph of the Globally section, please add how many nations have national governing bodies that are members of the IFNA. Racepacket (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Moved the Governance section, where this is stated, up higher. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The photos continue to check out. Please fix the disamb. link to Victoria.
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Worklist as of March 20
Going through the items raised on the talk page and the GA review above, here is a list of what appears to remain unaddressed: We need to address some details and sourcing issues: Let's try to wrap this up. Thanks Racepacket (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) neutrality issues outlined by Bill william compton
 * 2) statements about where it is popular and why
 * 3) Liveste correctly notes that the early history of women's basketball, which quickly evolved rules separate from men's basketball was removed from the article and she suggests restoring it to the History section. I support that and would have the history section trace further changes in the rules until the sport evolved to the present netball rules.
 * See general talk page. The sources do not support a connection between American women's basketball and English women's basketball.  All sources support a connection to the game of basketball that was invented by Naismith.  If you have multiple sources that suggest otherwise, please cite them.  --LauraHale (talk) 06:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've responded to your concerns and provided sources indicating the link between women's basketball and netball. Unless the information can be effectively contradicted, then we should reinclude the references to women's basketball. And I'm male, FWIW ;). – Liveste (talk • edits) 12:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I know that a number of souces have been discussed on the talk page. The final version can be different than what was there originally. Liveste, do you want to try putting something (old or new) back into the article? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) History section can document the variety of rules and the push to standardize  them under the IFNA.
 * 2) The correct full name of COSANA. - probably overtaken by the renaming as "Africa Netball."
 * 3) Eliminating red links - not really a GA criteria
 * Fixed
 * 1) Add material about netball in schools per John Vanderberg
 * Fixed. 
 * 1) Dimensions - I am dropping the request to put metric measurements second, but what year were the field dimensions standardized? Is the center  circle 3 ft or 2 ft 11"?
 * Which metric measurement did you want? Centimetres and metres convert over differently.  Official measurements are in metric.  The metric measurement was changed per your request above.  This is resulting in the difference, as centimetres and meters have different tolerances for deviation.
 * We should quote what the official IFNA rules say. The problem is that the IFNA website says 3 ft, and the Wikipedia article now says 2 ft 11 inches, so there is a WP:V issue to clean up. Racepacket (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Tricky. I'd go with 3 ft since that's what the rules say, even if it's less accurate. Mind you, "3 feet" is a measurement with one significant figure, so it can be considered approximate (as in "significantly" accurate but imprecise). We could always just add a footnote. – Liveste (talk • edits) 05:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Professional model for netball? This was raised by KnowIG in his review comments above and the discussion was left unresolved.
 * Incomplete sentence.
 * 1) Explaination  of the difference between netball and modern basketball
 * 2) Clarifying what part of the article refers to men, what refers to women and what refers to coed netball.
 * Fixed. Not yet, but please help Racepacket (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: Coed is an American term. It would not be understood by most speakers of British, Australian and New Zealand English.  This is another example of American bias in your review... just like your mention of minorities.  The term minorities is not used in Australia or Australia.  It would not be understood.  Beyond that, what minorities?  We're talking a game played around the world: Who are the minorities in Jamaica, the Cook Islands, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, Malawi, Singapore?  Where there is an issue of different participation rates, it is documented in the section by country.
 * Again, everyone is free to use their native language on the talk page without implying that the language won't be translated when copying over to the article space. The reader is currently left puzzled as to what is being discussed women, men or a "mixed gender" game at each stage of the article. I have offered a few suggested edits to clarify this, but I am open to alternatives. Our goal is clear prose. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * User:LauraHale is incorrect about WP:MOS which says, "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision. This does not apply to ... where all referents are of one gender." So, to the extent that some competition is men-only, or women-only, or "mixed" we can include that fact for clarity. Racepacket (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Eliminate any "Olympic sport" claims regarding netball
 * Factually inaccurate to do so.  It is an Olympic sport. The article uses British English.  The usage is accurate in British English and its usage matches with the page about what are Olympic sports on Wikipedia.  We've been round and round and round on this one. If you're unhappy with this and cannot accept this wording, then fail the article.
 * I want to understand your viewpoint. If we both agree that "Olympic sport" means a sport played in the Olympics and we both agree that netball does not meet that definition, why would anyone want to mislead or confuse the readers? Do you have any references supporting a different meaning in British English? If so, then the Olympic sport Wikipedia article should be amended to warn readers about the potential for misunderstanding. Assuming that there is a 180 degree difference in meaning between American English and British English (which remains to be established) then it is best to avoid the term completely in this article to avoid confusion. Racepacket (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Racepacket asked me as another UK Brit to join in and try to resolve this. The claim that "the International Olympic Committee recognized netball as an Olympic sport, does seem to be unclear for readers. Is there any difference between a sport that is already played in the Olympics and one that has been granted the status of Olympic sport that has not yet been played at the Olympics, it seems to me that there is a big difference and that difference could use clarification that although netball has been accepted as having the ability to be a part of the Olympics but to date has not been a part of the Olympic games. I think the internal should also link to the relevant section Olympic sport and not to the main Olympic sports as the issue is specifically explained in that section and possibly a clarification to the statement as I mentioned above. This similar sport starts a section with the clarification "Efforts begun in 1996 to promote the inclusion of orienteering in the Olympic Games have so far been unsuccessful" and does not refer to the sport as being an "Olympic sport" at all, although it has the same status as Netball - Orienteering - Off2riorob (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on Off2riorob's comments, I would propose, changing: "In 1995, netball became an Olympic-recognised sport,[26][203] making it possible for the sport to be included in future games.[8][204] This came after a twenty year period of lobbying.[203]"->"After 20 years of lobbying,[203] in 1995, the International Olympic Committee recognized netball as a sport.[26]" I would drop the "making it possible language" because that is speculation not allowed by WP:CRYSTAL. (Please verify both fn. 203 and 26.) Racepacket (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between a sport that is played in the Olympics and one that has been granted the status of a recognised Olympic sport. The distinction is extremely important in Third World countries where being a recognised sport brings in IOC funding. In order to qualify, a sport must have male participants in at least 75 countries on four continents and female participants in at least 40 countries on three continents. It must have national and international bodies and international competitions. It must have an organised drug testing program. This is distinct from a demonstration sport like Australian Football which was played at the 1956 Olympics. I have linked it to Olympic sport per your suggestion. Deleted "making it possible" which was only there as a clarification. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The idea that IOC-recognised sports are called "Olympic sports" in British English is news to me. Please provide sources verifying the claim. The IOC website lists the IFNA as a "Recognised Sport Federation" and netball as a "recognised sport" ("Olympic Movement Directory: International Federations" drop menu at ), with British English spelling. "Olympic-recognised sport" or "IOC-recognised" sport is less confusing than "Olympic sport" regarding netball. – Liveste (talk • edits) 05:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Demographic appeal - this can use the references regarding gender roles evolving
 * 2) Number of countries playing netball
 * 3) Need to assure that there are no close paraphrase problems, particularly in the position descriptions
 * I am particularly concerned with the "position descriptions" in the table. These are close paraphrases of other sources.  Would it be better to quote the rule book, or another authoritative source directly? Racepacket (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "and in 1924 the first national governing body was established." - need source and say which country.
 * Fixed.
 * "In Australia, netball competed with women's basketball, with the two sports sharing the name 'women's basketball'."->" In Australia, confusion existed because both netball and basketball were called 'women's basketball'." - Need ref and reword
 * Fixed.
 * According to the African regional body is called "Africa Netball."
 * Citations mentioning the Southern Africa region do not use that name. Are you 100% certain that these sources are referring to this particular region?  Or are could they possibly be referring to a more regional federation?  Do you have any citations to support your interpretation? --LauraHale (talk) 06:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We need to clear up the reference in terms of today's realities. As I understand it, African netball governing bodies have been reorganized and renamed "Africa Netball" or formerly "CANA." Are your other Southern Africa references perhaps out-of-date or have I been misinformed? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * fn 84 for the "About IFNA" web page needs to be cleaned up. I suggest the cite web template.
 * Fixed: Some one added (about IFNA) in to cite. This broke link.  No year is listed because the about page had no year to date it. --LauraHale (talk) 06:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My bad. Thanks for fixing it. – Liveste (talk • edits) 05:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A larger problem is that fn 84 supports a number of facts that are not present on that webpage. If the fact is on a different webpage, we need to provide a footnote to that separate webpage. Criteria 2(a). Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In the Africa section, add that of the 57 countries in Africa only 12 have national governing bodies that are full IFNA members.
 * Added.
 * In the Asia section, add that of the 49 countries in Asia, only 10 have national governing bodies that are full IFNA members.
 * Added
 * In the Americas section, add that of the 54 countries in the Americas, only 13 have national governing bodies that are full IFNA members.
 * Added
 * In the Europe section, add that of the 64 countries in Europe, only 8 have national governing bodies that are full IFNA members.
 * Added
 * In the Oceania section, add that of the 24 countries in Oceania, only 6 have national governing bodies that are full IFNA members.
 * Added
 * In the governance section, add that IFNA is a signatory to the World Anti-Doping Code.
 * I added the information, but I wasn't sure how to cite another undated IFNA page, so I used a straight citation for now. How best to cite? – Liveste (talk • edits) 05:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "These countries were heavily involved in creating the rules for netball.[97]"->"These countries were heavily involved in standardizing the rules for netball.[97]"
 * Fixed
 * "In England, netball has been popular enough to be included as part of the physical education curriculum.[160]"->"In England, netball has been included as part of the physical education curriculum.[160]" - over what period of time? what percentage of schools play it?
 * "Male participation in netball in Wales has been increasing in the past several years.[162]" Fn 162 does not support statement. Avoid relative temporal statements like "past several years" also what percentage of male students participate?
 * Regarding Cook Islands: "and the team has been an important in the region since then.[174]" - rewrite. Avoid "important in the region" and "since then" It might be true in 2011, but that does not guarantee it will be true in 2020.
 * "As of January 2011, the women's national team was ranked number eleven in the world.[85]" - add "out of 25" because the reference only shows 25 teams.
 * "Samoa and Fiji are traditional netball rivals." - need source
 * " At Gay Games VI held in 2000, a transgendered netball from Samoa competed.[184]" - was it a "netball team"?
 * Fixed
 * "are largely self funded.[147]" ->"are largely self-funded.[147] "
 * Fixed
 * "Currently, IFNA only recognises women's netball.[147]"->"Currently, IFNA's scope is limited to only women's netball.[147]" - IFNA does not really recognize competitions. It sanctions them. I think that the source is wrong. Can't we find a better secondary source that Turk who is a primary source - an official that competes with IFNA.
 * "The competition is the major international competition for men's national netball teams.[150]" - statement is also true for mixed teams.
 * Changed to "It is the major international competition for men's and mixed gendered national netball teams."
 * In the "Transgenders and transsexuals" section, I would start out by explaining that they are ineligble to play under IFNA rules, but that they compete internationally as a part of the Gay Games, which also have division for gay and lesbian players.
 * "Players used netball posts to score, instead of requiring them to shoot at the basket.[189]" - meaning is unclear and I can't access the source.
 * "In 1995, netball became an Olympic-recognised sport,[26][202] making it possible for the sport to be included in future games.[8][203]"->"In 1995, the International Olympic Committee recognized netball as a sport." - leave out any speculation about future games. Fn 8 does not support that. Fn 203 does not address it either with page 143 not mentioning netball at all.
 * "However, while netball may be the most popular women's sport in some parts of the world, in terms of media coverage and participation rates, money often goes to Olympic sports with low participation rates, low rates of interest and few facilities." - sentence is phrased to pre-suppose that netball is an Olympic sport, which it is not. Perhaps insert "instead" to flag that netball is not an Olympic sport.
 * Rewrote: "..., money often goes instead to Olympic sports with low participation rates ..." (minus italics).
 * Rewrite: "Some supporters of netball have argued that by trying to internationalise the game and be included in the Olympics has moved netball away from a model of women's sport and more towards a male model of competitive sport. This is viewed by some sport people as potentially detrimental to the game:[205]"
 * In the "Men" subsection, the sentence, "Currently, IFNA only recognises women's netball.[148]" probably should be "recognises only women's netball" or better would be to move that statement to the top of the "Demographic appeal" section to apply to all non-women competitions. The scope of the IFNA should also be covered in the "Governance" section, so that the reader will understand whether IFNA asserts jurisdiction over male or "mixed"/"coed" or transgendered competition.  Racepacket (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Worklist as of March 22 for Racepacket
"Enthusiasm in wanting an article to be the best it can be is admirable, but take care not to impose conditions for passing the article, perhaps based on your own stylistic preferences, that exceed the criteria. In particular, the GA criteria do not require compliance with several major guidelines, including Wikipedia:Notability and the main Wikipedia:Manual of Style page." 

I am always open to criticism, and although I have done a number of GA reviews, I am always willing to learn and to improve. However, I also have been told that this is User:LauraHale's first review and that some people react differently to constructive criticisms. Therefore, I will take the time to address her list of concerns in the hope that we can quickly move back to the task at hand — completing the GA review.
 * 1) Citation style is a nitpick.  - criteria 1(b), 2(a) and 2(b)
 * 2) Metric vs. Imperial, the level of metric measures used are nitpicks. - WP:V
 * 3) American English usage suggestions fail the article's requirement for the use of British English. - an assumption that is contrary to my many statements that we can use our own language on the talk page or the review page without implying that the spellings would carry over to the article page.
 * 4) When seven citations are provided to counter your argument, it is not your place to argue that your preference should trump those references. - I don't know to what you are referring.  It is possible that seven citations may have been misused or are not the majority opinion, so I would have to see the example.
 * 5) Sexist requirements are part of your requirements: You're insisting on gendering the page in violation with Wikipedia policy. - criteria 1(a) clarity
 * 6) Asking for issues to be worked on after they have already been resolved. - we are working in a transparent way to make sure that everyone agrees that they have been resolved.
 * 7) Imposition of American language usage and American thinking on an article that does not involve that: See Olympics. - Wikipedia article Olympic sport and the vast body of literature does not support your view. "Olympic sport" means sports played in the Olympics not sports recognized by the IOC, but not included in the Olympic Games schedule.
 * 8) Giving advice on how to fix an article and then about facing on that.  Make up your mind.  Bill was wrong about the red links.  You add red links.  Then you change your mind. - discussed below. Could you please provide a diff?
 * 9) Imposing on editors to insure no plagiarism is taking place.  That's the job of the reviewer to verify this. - discussed below
 * 10) Insisting on putting factually incorrect information on the article. - a misunderstanding of the process. See, criteria 1(a),2(b),2(c),3(a),3(b) and 4.

This review has been going on since March 5. You're not following the guidelines for reviewing a good article. Your primary task is to review Reviewing good articles and come up with a workable list of suggestions that comply with the guidelines on reviewing a good article. If you cannot review this article, ask for another reviewer or fail the article. --LauraHale (talk) 08:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You are correct on all these issues. Any citation style is fine so long as consistent. Imperial measurements and American English are not to be used. Red links are fine. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As for the length of the review, the original reviewer Bill noted a number of important ways that the article did not met GA criteria. The nominator, LauraHall said that she could not communicate with Bill and after a lot of time back and forth, asked for a substitute. I volunteered, and as I began, KnowIG gave a detailed critique.  I have also been trying to give detailed examples to minimize miscommunications.  However, just because I point out a few examples of "words to watch," that does not free the people working on this article from addressing all similar problems.  This review has become rather lengthy, so I took the time to catalog what appeared to be the open issues.  In some cases, like the red links I have added a notation that they are not a GA criteria. diff  (Could you please give an example where I "add red links.") I would like us to review the list and see what has been resolved and what has not. Being included on the list means that it is not self-evident that the matter was closed.
 * As for "Imposing on editors to insure no plagiarism is taking place," as nominator you were supposed to bring the sourcing and verifiability of the article up to GA standards prior to nominating it. In the course of that work, did you see any copying or close paraphrasing that you think that I should examine?  You have greater access to some of these off-line references than do I.  May I pick some selected pages, ask you to scan and email them to me so that I can spot check the unavailable sources? I will do a copyright review once we have otherwise finalized the article.
 * Most of the records are available on Google Scholar, and Google Book. Beyond that, no, you may not imply that I am a plagiarist with out cause.  If you have serious concerns, then go check Google Book.  Go check Google Scholar.  Go to your library or bookstore and get the books cited.  If you have genuine cause to believe that this article has serious plagiarism problems, which your demands for sources implies, it should be quick failed for copyright vios.  Beyond that, you're exceeding the scope of the Good Article Review.   Now, please retract the unsubstantiated allegations of plagiarism. --LauraHale (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of ever insisting on "putting factually incorrect information on the article." You found Bill's comments were too vague for you to appreciate, so I have tried to give concrete examples. If my proposed language (after transliterating spellings) are not exactly correct, you are free to propose a substitute or to post an edit implementing the guidance in a manner that  is accurate.  That is different from ignoring the suggestion.
 * The GA criteria of comprehensive and focused are very subjective. So it is not surprising that it has provoked so much discussion.  But, editors working on most articles find a way to resolve this.
 * There are many people involved in editing the article and at least three people have devoted considerable time in reviewing it. Let's calmly and systematically walk through what remains, resolve any outstanding problems, and then complete the review. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "May I pick some selected pages, ask you to scan and email them to me so that I can spot check the unavailable sources? I will do a copyright review once we have otherwise finalized the article." No, you may not. That will be regarded as harassment. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a good idea to give anything to racepacket to look for copyrighted vio, considering his history. It was only last month that he was banned indef for copy vios. So I don't think he is the best person to judge copyright here. KnowIG (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For you information, that was a controversy involving the close paraphrasing of public domain materials, which has been resolved, but it underscores the need to be very careful about copyright matters. I still have not heard from User:LauraHale on my proposal, but if necessary, I have access to the Library of Congress reading room and can probably obtain the books there. The important point is that we work together to finalize the language and then get it reviewed. Racepacket (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * KnowIG, was checking for copyright/close paraphrasing within the scope of the review work that you did last week? Any concerns noted? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A lot of them are on google. Nothing similar to what is written in the books and sources I've seen. can not be a copy vio. Although double check what the source says please Laura. I've corrected 0.6 to 0.7 and added that it was within schools. So i don't know if you've made any other little errors. KnowIG (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I double checked them. This can be verified by Hawkeye7, who was given access to the sources I have been using that are not available on Google Books and Google Scholar.  I've checked and rechecked them.  Beyond that, if Racepacket wants to accuse me of plagiarism or even ellude to the fact that he thinks I've plagiarised in the article, he needs to cite the text that he alleges that is plagiarised and cite the reference that he belives is plagiarised.  That is an incredibly serious accusation to make.  Beyond that, if there are accusations of plagiarism and copyright violations where I am found guilty of having done this, it needs to be addressed and appropiate action taken against me for that. In either case, I've verified that I have done this.  I consider a demand for me to provide sources an operation of bad faith.  The job of the Good ARticle Reviewer is not to engage in this type of nitpicking.  What's he doing is more for a featured article.  I'd like a retraction from Racepacket regarding any alleged possibility of plagiarism UNLESS HE CAN PROVE IT. --LauraHale (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The article may have citation issues. I can readily acknowledge that.  Some of this stems from repeated rewrites done at the request of multiple reviewers, and with multiple editors trying to fix the text to get it passed.  The meaning subtlely changes away from the source in some cases.  Beyond that, in attempting to fix wording that doesn't make use of the proper use of American antecedent usage, editors with out access to the original text may have inadvertently arrived at the same wording as the original text. --LauraHale (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen what he has flagged up, and TBH it seems rather flimsy as in, you have taken the source and written it in another way. When in the context of the bit you were writing there is really no other way to state this. But it's upto someone else now and I believe they may think the same. No other way of phrasing it. Anyway I'll make an effort tomorrow to clear this GA up. KnowIG (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've asked one of my supervisors about the issue of that, and yeah, sometimes there are just no other ways to word things. Or you have four sources who almost all use variations of the same wording.  If that is the case, then it isn't that much of a problem.  How many different ways are there to indicate which parts of the court a player can be in?  Yesterday, I went through multiple different sources on the history of netball (and its early history as it connects to basketball) and the sources were all basically pretty much phrasing things the same way with a few words here or there.  This isn't a case where we have one or two sources on a particular topic... but where we could concievably cite 100 different sources for the same information and we'd inadvertently copy some one else's text.  It's just the nature of the beast with common knowledge and important information like this. --LauraHale (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Could User:LauraHale please provide the diff where you believe that I "accuse [you] of plagiarism"? I only suggested that if I can't get online access to some sources, that I designate a random sample of pages and ask you to provide me with specified pages to spot check. You have not responded to my proposal one way or the other. Close paraphrasing is a wide-spread problem in Wikipedia, and as LauraHale noted above, she believes "That's the job of the reviewer to verify this."  User:LauraHale can not have it both ways — on the one hand, she is telling me that checking for any possible plagiarism is "the job of the reviewer" while on the otherhand taking great umbrage when I discuss a workplan for performing that task. In the meantime, this discussion highlights two still unaddressed items: 1) the close paraphrasing in the table describing player positions and 2) adding Google Scholar or Google Books to the footnotes when available. Racepacket (talk) 03:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Since when has Wikipedia requiered notes to google books. Usually you quote the book and boom show over. Pushing it here imo. KnowIG (talk) 08:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If KnowIG has gone to the trouble of locating an online version of a source, it would be a courtesy to the reader to help him find the online material, if it is not available via its ISBN or DOI. Citing_sources Racepacket (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward
What is the process for moving forward from this? Given Requests for comment/Racepacket 2, it is highly possible that the current person doing the review is going to get blocked on Wikipedia. Are there ways that the Good Article nomination can be retracted, the valid criticism be worked on for a week, and then we can submit it for review again with out having the original nominator or Racepacket involved? --LauraHale (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't think that "highly possible" is an apt term. I foresee us wrapping up this review in the next few days, and I won't even turn my attention to that other matter until we are through. I have place the article on hold, and because User:LauraHale complained about Bill's time deadlines, I am being very liberal in not rushing you to complete the noted work.  I appreciate you (LauraHale) volunteeering as the original nominator to step away from the process, but at this time I am willing to work with you to complete it because I think we are close to a conclusion.  But if the orginal nominator wishes to step aside and there are other editors willing to address the few remaining items, there is no requirement that the nominator make the final edits to the article. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have addressed all of the items that User:LauraHale asked me to address in the "Worklist as of March 22 for Racepacket" that she wrote. Having done that, let us return to clearing the remaining issues in order to bring this GA review to a successful conclusion.  I will start the process of checking the sources and will try to get help. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 03:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Clearing the article for copyright or close paraphrase problems
The following is copy and pasted from PLAGFORM:

With some text, plagiarism is not a concern because content is not creative. Here are some examples where attribution is generally not required for plagiarism concerns, although you may still need to cite sources because of Wikipedia's policy on verifiability and original research:
 * Use of common expressions and idioms, including those that are common in various sub-cultures such as academic ones.
 * Phrases that are the simplest and most obvious way to present information. Sentences such as "John Smith was born on 2 February 1900" lack sufficient creativity to require attribution.

End quote. There are only so many ways to word an idea such as where a player may stand on the court. Accusations of paraphrasing around that as being plagiarism are covered by "Phrases that are the simplest and most obvious way to present information."

While at it, Reviewing_good_articles says it is up to you "At a bare minimum, check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources), that they support the content of the article, and that the article contains no plagiarism." It isn't up to me to prove that. --LauraHale (talk) 05:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for asking this important question, which I read as going past quibbling over "paraphrase" vs. "plagiarism". Every Wikipedia article goes through a life cycle from a stub to a poorly sourced article to a Good Article and for some a Featured Article. In order to pass the GA stage, a second person (the reviewer) must test the sourcing and verifiablity of the article. As long as we are testing the article for quality, we also have to check out its copyright status, not only what is on the face of the article, but also any images that it uses.  I am most familiar with United States intellectual property law, having taken courses in law school, passing an examination to be admitted to the US Patent Office, and then litigating cases, but I understand that New Zealand law is similar.  Wikipedia does not use the copyright infringement standard when assessing its articles, because it is not only worried about its own liability, it wants material that can be completely reusable.  So it imposes a much higher standard in WP:C and WP:PARAPHRASE which prohibits the "close paraphrasing" of texts written by others.  In US copyright law, one can take a number of facts from different sources, rearrange them, and it will not be an infringement. But Wikipedia wants its users to have the right to break apart those facts, perhaps rearranging them again, and not have any fear that the new combination will accidentally infringe some other works. This is a big problem when writing about sport rules, because putting the rules in your own words can make an article inaccurate. So the article describes the Goal Shooter:

"The Goal Shooter's main role is to shoot goals.[38] Players in this position can move within the attacking goal third, including the shooting circle.[34][39] This player is often defended by the opposing team's Goal Keeper. The Goal Shooter works closely with Goal Attack in the shooting circle, and work to position themselves to receive passes from the feeding midcourt players.[38]" comes from: "This player must get past the Goal Keeper of the other team. He or she can move within the 'attacking' goal third, including the shooting circle." I recommended quotation from the rulebook over close paraphrase. Racepacket (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Funny that the outside user who looked at it said that it would be ok. Ignore the last suggestion, more POV pushing from Racepacket. KnowIG (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * KnowIG: I have an open mind on the issue, perhaps I missed "the outside user who looked at it." Please enlighten me and I will drop the issue.  I just want us to resolve it one way or the other and have been trying to get a third party to give an opinion on it. Racepacket (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Dimensions
The NZ Indoor Netball rules are: RULE 33 COURT DIMENSIONS

33-1 The court must be no less than 27 metres and no more than 30 metres in length, no less than 10.0 metres and no more than 12 metres in width and the height being no less than 4 metres and no more than 4.5 metres.

33-2 The Centre line divides the court into Attack and Defence halves.

33-3 The goal circle must be at least 3.6 metres in radius or 7.2 metres in diameter.

33-4 The goal hoop must be positioned centrally in the goal circle with the back of the hoop no more than 800mm off the back net.

33-5 The goal hoop must be 3.05 metres high and 380mm in diameter. Perhaps we should take our accuracy of dimensions from this. Racepacket (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawing request for good article status
This review has gone one for almost three weeks. There are issues with the reviewer. We're never going to get these issues resolved satisfactorily and in a timely manner. The request for good article status has been withdrawn until we can address some of the outstanding issues in the article. After these have been fixed, we will resubmit. Contrary to the reviewers contention, you cannot force some one to go through the good article process against their will and insisting that they do could be considered harassment. --LauraHale (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)